Guilty lawmakers must come clean

Almost a week after the revelations, Jamaicans do not know which two of their lawmakers are subjects of a major corruption probe by the Integrity Commission, even as the two main political parties admit the allegations are “serious” and they want to know the names.

Part of the difficulty in knowing, however, is tied to the secrecy clause inputted in the Integrity Commission (IC) Act proposed under the previous Portia Simpson Miller administration and enacted into law in 2017 under the current Andrew Holness administration.

Without giving the names, the Integrity Commission disclosed through its annual report released last Tuesday that two parliamentarians are being investigated for illicit enrichment while two – widely believed to be the same persons – have been referred for prosecution for providing false information on their income and assets.

The legislators could either be from the 21 senators or 63 members of parliament.

Dr Horace Chang, deputy prime minister and general secretary of the ruling Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), and Mark Golding, opposition leader and president of the People’s National Party (PNP), said they don’t yet know whether representatives from their ranks are involved in the probe generating whispers throughout corridors of Gordon House.

Chang said he’s interested to know whether JLP representatives are being investigated, although he recognised that Section 53 of the IC Act blocks the commission from naming anyone until it tables a report in Parliament.

“I suspect if it was any of my members, they’ll be informed and they’d come to me and the party leader early in the game,” he said Friday, referring to Prime Minister Andrew Holness.

The Integrity Commission is an amalgamation of three entities, including one exclusively focused on parliamentarians. That body’s practice included informing the two leaders in Parliament of tardy members from their side but that’s changed with the new legislation.

Continuing, Chang, who is also the national security minister, said it would be “unfortunate” if any of his fellow lawmakers is later charged with corruption offences but the “chips will have to lie where they fall”.

NO INDICATION

The PNP is trying to identify whether any of its members is facing prosecution, explained Golding, who acknowledged that the allegations are “serious”.

The St Andrew Southern MP, who was elected party leader last November, said the party has asked the 13 Opposition MPs and eight senators to indicate whether any of them is being investigated but “none has so indicated”.

He didn’t clarify whether everyone has responded.

Golding, meanwhile, has a message should any of his Comrades become implicated in the corruption probe.

“If charges are laid, or if charges are not laid in circumstances of manifest and undenied culpability, we would expect the person to step back from any position(s) held within the party unless and until their name is cleared,” he said.

Parliamentarians enacting legislation that gives them privacy is not good governance, argued Jeanette Calder, the executive director of the Jamaica Accountability Meter Portal.

“It cannot be acceptable that our own legislators have passed a law that shelters and grants them privacy when an agent of the state has concluded that they have committed a crime. That inequity must be corrected … and the Integrity Commission annual reports must return to providing this information,” she argued.

Golding and other senior opposition lawmakers, including Anthony Hylton, the leader of the opposition business in the House of Representatives, and Peter Bunting, who holds a similar role in the Senate, say they are willing to consider amendments to the IC to giving more details.

“I believe there’s a strong argument that once you’re formally being investigated, perhaps that be known,” said Hylton, acknowledging that a situation could arise where the subject of probe could be unknown but in a position to influence decisions or laws.

In saying he is “open” to considering changes to the law, the opposition leader said there are arguments on both sides as to whether current secrecy clause goes “too far” in protecting individuals from irreparable harm to their reputations if the investigation leads to exoneration.

Bunting said he understood the intention of Section 53 to protect reputations from “politically motivated” allegations that triggered probes but “in hindsight”, a balance between the individual and public’s interest has to be struck.

“If it came to Parliament now, I would support taking out that prohibition and allowing for the disclosure,” he said.

THE LEGISLATION IS WORKING

Edmund Bartlett, the leader of government business in the House and tourism minister, did not respond to questions submitted on the issue Friday.

Chang was not as explicit on whether he supported changes to the IC law, arguing that the legislation is “working”.

“If the IC did not find them, then that would be a different problem,” he said.

Back in 2019, chairman of the IC, Justice Seymour Panton, said the commission felt “trapped” by the legislation.

The body has maintained a recommendation for Parliament to amend the muzzle clause which some feel was aimed at preventing what obtained at the former Office of the Contractor General (OCG) where the public was informed when investigations started.

Among its heads, Greg Christie, the current IC executive director, was both feared and disliked for his use of such press statements.

Lawmakers also approved an IC Act which bars the commission from telling the public about contracts and licences awarded by government bodies.

The IC collects the information quarterly, but unlike what obtained under the OCG where the data, including the contractors and amounts would be a published online, the IC has ceased doing this to comply with Section 54 of the IC Act, which says information collected on contracts and licences shall be kept “secret and confidential”.

Along with the legislators, six public officials were referred for prosecution for submitting false information on their income. The same number is under investigation for illicit enrichment, a breach under the Corruption Prevention Commission.

The IC did not say whether those for prosecution and investigation are the same persons.

Knowingly giving false information is an offence under the IC Act which, upon conviction, carries a fine not exceeding $2 million or up to two years in prison, while under the Corruption Prevention Act, 2001, knowingly making any false statement in any such statutory declaration could result in a $1-million fine or imprisonment not exceeding two years.

In terms of illicit enrichment, Section 14 of the Integrity Commission states that a public servant becomes liable for prosecution if he/she fails to explain or give a satisfactory reason for owning assets disproportionate to their lawful earnings.

The law says that it shall be a defence to a person charged with an offence of illicit enrichment to show the court that he came by the assets by lawful means.

The development opens the door for removal from Parliament, should it come to that.

Section 41 of the Constitution says a member of either the Senate or the House may be removed for reasons which include becoming bankrupt and convicted of a crime for six months or more.

editorial@gleanerjm.com